SR-9-B (45)
9-1J
OCT 8 1991
LUTM:PB:DKW:bz Santa Monica, California
Council Meeting: October 8, 1991
Kjpermit
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct City Attorney to Prepare
Resolution of Intention and Text Amendments to the
zoning Ordinance Regarding Permit Terms and Extensions
INTRODUCTION
The city council directed staff to review the issue of planning
and building permit extensions. The City Attorney has prepared a
separate memorandum concerning several project-specific extension
issues. The issues addressed by that memorandum are not
addressed herein; instead, this report describes several
already-implemented as well as proposed general changes to the
Zoning Ordinance which are intended to clarify permit terms and
extensions.
BACKGROUND
There are several permit extension issues which staff believes
need change or clarification. These concern statements of
official action and conditions of approval~ extension terms of
various planning permits; and clarifying what constitutes use of
a building permit. Another issue which needs to be addressed is
when the General Service Department's infrastructure requirements
9-8
- 1 -
Del 8 1991
are set in the development process. Each of these issues are
discussed below.
Action statements
Staff has already implemented several changes to the statements
of Official Action (SOAs) which are intended to e}{plicitly and
consistently state the term of each permit and the ability to
extend each permit. Although the Zoning Ordinance established
permit term limits, up until recently, SCAs did not consistently
state permit terms or extension ability, leading to some
subsequent problems, particularly for older projects approved
before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988.
Specific changes to address these concerns include:
0 staff has revised the determination form for each type
of permit to explicitly state the expiration date of each
approval, and the length of any possible extension.
0 Standard conditions of approval now indicate that for
new construction projects, a building permit must be
obtained prior to the expiration of the planning permit in
order to maintain the ability to proceed with a project.
Although obtaining a building permit was generally the
standard used in the past, it was not consistently used;
through this change, staff established a consistent
standard.
- 2 -
- -
.
These changes improve the record of each permit approval, and are
expected to eliminate some of the problems which previously
existed.
Extension Terms
The Zoning Ordinance has what appear to be inconsistent standards
regarding the term of extensions. For example, the ordinance
provides that Administrative Approvals and Variances are normally
valid for a period of one year, and may be extended by up to six
months, while Development Review and Conditional Use permits are
normally valid for a period of one year, but may only be extended
for a period of three months. Further, Performance standards
Permits are normally valid for only six months, but may involve
projects of equal or greater complexity than Administrative
Approvals or Variances. Development Review and Conditional Use
permits usually involve more complex and larger projects than
Variances or Administrative Approvals, so it is unclear why a
Development Review and Conditional Use Permit have a shorter
overall potential tenn than a Variance or Administrative
Approval, and also why Performance Standards Permits have a
shorter term than Administrative Approvals and Variances. staff
believes there was an intent to make the terms of the various
permits consistent, but revisions to effect such changes did not
occur in the zoning Ordinance drafting process.
- 3 -
The inconsistency among the various permit types led to some
problems in the first few years of Zoning Ordinance
implementation. To address these problems, and to achieve
greater consistency in the ordinancef staff proposes that the
standard term of the maJor planning permits (Administrative
Approval, Performance Standards Permit, Variance, Ocean Park Yard
Reduction Permit, Reduced Parking Permit, Development Review
Permit, and Conditional Use Permit) be made consistent for a term
of eighteen months, with the ability for the hearing body to
establish a longer term as appropriate. This is consistent with
the maximum term presently available for Variances and
Administrative Approvals. However, it would be three months
longer than the present maximum term of Development Review and
Conditional Use Permits. Given the precedent established by the
Variance and Administrative Approval terms, the complexity of the
City's planning process, and the complexity of the development
process generally, and of the CUP and DR process in particular,
eighteen months appears to be an appropriate maximum term as
compared to a shorter period.
There are two other permit-term issues which need to be
addressed: permit terms for subdivisions, and terms for uses
which will occupy space within a development project. The
Subdivision Ordinance provides that tentative subdivision maps
are valid for a period of two years from its approval, however,
most subdivisions in Santa Monica involve condominiums, which in
- 4 -
---- ---
addition to a tentat1ve map, also need a CondItional Use Permit.
CUPs are normally valid for a period of one year. The Planning
Commission has addressed this inconsistency by providing in its
conditions of approval that the CUP is valid for as long as the
tentative map is valid. This appears to be a reasonable approach
which reconciles the requirements of the two ordinances, and
staff would recommend that the Zoning Ordinance reflect the
Planning Commission's practice.
At times, CUPs or other planning permits are needed to authorize
specific uses (such as restaurants, medical office space, etc. )
within a development project. Since these uses cannot occupy the
building until it is complete, and since constructing a new
building can take years, the term of a CUP or other permit for
the special use may run out before the building is completed. To
address this issue, staff is recommending that the code be
amended to provide that the rights granted for uses within a
construction project will expire if not exercised within six
months following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
building.
Extension of Planning permits
The Zoning Ordinance provides that planning permits are valid for
an initial term (usually one year) , but may be extended by the
Zoning Administrator "for good cause.1t The ordinance provides no
standards as to what constitutes good cause, and the extension
- 5 -
-- ------
provisions have been treated as a ministerial function. To
simpll.fy this situation, staff proposes that the extension
ability at an administrative level be eliminated.
Generally, discretionary permits involve more complex projects
which may require longer periods of time to accomplish. To
recognize such difficulties, it is proposed that the code be
clarified to provide that in the case of discretionary permits,
the original hearing body may extend the term of planning permits
for an approved project on a one-time basis for not more than six
months, application for which must be made at least three months
in advance of the expiration date of the permit. The application
to extend would be subject of a public hearing and noticed in the
same manner as the original permit. Specific findings of
circumstances unique to the project would be required to approve
such an extension, including unusual delays in obtaining other
required government approvals (this might include extraordinary
delays at the Coastal commission, or at other State or federal
agencies (affordable housing projects, among others, have been
subject to unusual delays in obtaining required approvals at the
state and federal level).
Buildlna Permit Use
Although not arising out of the Zoning Ordinance, an important
issue is what level of construction activity is needed to keep a
building permit valid. The Uniform Building Code provides that
- 6 -
the building permit remains valid as long as work is being
performed. There is no requirement that the work be substantial,
or that the project be completed withln a set period.
In a limited number of cases, building permits for projects
approved under older regulations have been kept "alive" for years
with minimal work performed. In the interim, new development
standards which the City Council has determined to be more
appropriate have been adopted. New projects are subject to the
revised standards, but projects which have valid building permits
are not required to comply with the new standards. It would
generally be inappropriate to attempt to apply new standards to
projects which are in fact exercising the rights granted by a
valid building permit, but changes in current regulations are
needed to address projects which are not actually proceeding with
construction in any meaningful fashion.
To address this problem, staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance
be amended to provide that for new projects authorized by
planning permits, a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained
within two years of building permit lssuance, unless otherwise
authorized in the planning permit approval. This latter
provision is intended to provide flexibility for large or unusual
projects. In addition, staff proposes that the Planning Director
and Building and Safety Officer be authorized to approve up to a
one-year extension of the originally-authorized building permit
- 7 -
----
term lf the applicant demonstrates that construction equivalent
to at least 50% of the value of the project has been completed.
General Services Reauirements
The General Services Department identifies required improvements
for development projects during the Building Permit plancheck
process. Such improvements might include widening or repaving an
alley or street, improving a sewer line, replacing sidewalks, and
other items which may result ln costs in the tens of thousands of
dollars or more. Having these requirements emerge at the
Building Permit stage is problematic, both from a financial and
sometimes a design standpoint. For example, a street dedication
requirement may alter lot coverage and setback elements, or
necessitate a building redesign. staff believes it would be
preferable that these requirements be set prior to Planning
approval, so that they may be considered early in the development
process.
Procedure
Zoning Ordinance text amendments are initiated by a Resolution of
Intention, and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Staff is recommending that the city Attorney be directed to draft
an ordinance implementing recommendations of this report, along
with a Planning Commission Resolution of Intention to formally
initiate the amendments. The Planning Commission would conduct a
- 8 -
public hearing on the amendments and forward its recommendations
to the City Council.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations of this report would have no budget or
financial impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct the city Attorney
to prepare Zoning Ordinance text amendments and a Resolution of
Intention for the consideration of the Planning Commission
including the following provisions:
1. The standard term of the major planning permits
(Administrative Approval, Performance Standards Permit, variance,
Ocean Park Yard Reduction Permit, Reduced Parking Permit,
Development Review Permit, and Conditional Use Permit) shall be a
period of eighteen months. Consistent with present code
provisions, the hearing entity may set a longer term in
conjunction with project approval for large or otherwise complex
projects.
2. The ability to grant an extension of planning permits at an
administrative level shall be eliminated.
3. The term of any planning permits granted for a subdivision
shall be consistent with the term established for a tentative map
by the Subdivision Ordinance.
4. Planning permits for uses wi thin a new building which are
approved in conjunction with approval of such new building shall
expire if the rights granted by approvals for such uses are not
exercised within six months following issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the building.
S. In the case of discretionary permits, the original hearing
body may extend the term of the planning permit for an approved
project on a one-time basis for not more than six months.
Application for such extension must be at least three months in
- 9 -
advance of the expiration date of the permit. Specific findings
of circumstances unique to the project shall be required to
approve such an extension, including unusual delays in obtaining
other required government approvals (this might include
extraordinary delays at the Coastal Commission, or at other state
or federal agencies.)
6. Provide that for new projects authorized by the planning
permits set forth in item (1) above, a certificate of Occupancy
must be obtained within two years of building permit issuance,
unless otherwise authorlzed in the original planning permit
approval. In addition, the Planning Director and Building
Officer may approve up to a one-year extension of the
originally-authorized term if the applicant demonstrates that
construction equivalent to at least 50% of the project valuation
has been completed.
7. Require that General Services Department infrastructure
improvement requirements be set prior to Planning permit
approvals.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Paul Berlant, LUTM Director
- 10 -
- - - - ----